Justice Barry Kamins was spending a Saturday evening with his family — the plan was to attend Cirque Du Solei and then go to dinner afterward. However, the retired judge didn’t make it past the entry at the MSG Theater when alarms started going off.
These actions stem from MSG’s policy, implemented by CEO James Dolan, which prohibits attorneys from firms engaged in active litigation against the company from attending events at their venues.
“I was with my grandkids, my daughter, and when I went through the entrance bells started going off and I was immediately pulled aside,” Kamins recalled. “They explained that I was on a list of firms that have lawsuits against MSG. I was worried about my 8-year-old grandson because I was concerned that he was going to look at me like I’m a bad person.”
Justice Kamins admitted that his firm was notified that this situation could happen when Aidala, Bertuna and Kamins took on a client who was suing MSG Entertainment nearly a year ago. However, he explained that since he is not a part of the lawsuit himself, has no idea who the client even is, and since he wasn’t going to MSG itself but the theater next door, that he might be able to get away with enjoying a night off with his family.
Now, Kamins may be the latest to join in lawsuits against MSG Entertainment.
“There is a civil rights law that may be violated,” Kamins said. “The policy they have explains that by allowing lawyers into their facilities it would be injurious to their employees, I’m not sure I understand that. It has to be a rational policy.”
This phrase “injurious to their employees” suggests that MSG believes allowing these lawyers into their facilities might harm or negatively affect their employees in some way. However, Kamins expresses skepticism about this rationale, finding it hard to understand how the mere presence of these lawyers could cause such harm. He implies that the policy lacks a clear, rational basis and might be unfairly discriminatory, potentially violating civil rights law.
The ban is not permanent. Kamins said that when Aidala, Bertuna and Kamins was notified initially, they were told that they would be allowed back after the resolution of the case. The Brooklyn judge joked that he now prefers the Barclays Center, though he did admit that if his grandchildren wanted to go back that it would be hard for him to say no.
Kamins is hardly the only member of the legal community who has gotten involved with this issue. About a year ago, Brooklyn attorney Benjamin Pinczewski was escorted out of MSG before a Rangers game on Jan. 10.
Despite not being directly involved in the lawsuit against MSG, Pinczewski was identified by facial recognition technology and was asked to leave the arena. Describing the experience as a “slap in the face,” Pinczewski expressed his dismay at being treated like a criminal in front of thousands.
Earlier cases include a New Jersey attorney being ejected from a Rockettes show at Radio City Music Hall and a Long Island lawyer barred from a Knicks game.
The controversy has attracted political attention. NYS Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Tony Simone have introduced legislation to counteract MSG’s policy. These bills seek to extend a 1941 civil rights law, originally used to protect theater critics from being banned from Broadway shows, to now include sporting events, potentially stopping MSG from blocking attorneys or any other fans deemed corporate adversaries.
MSG’s policy and its use of facial recognition technology are at the center of a complex legal debate that intertwines issues of civil rights, privacy, and fundamental democratic freedoms.
Justice Kamins has raised concerns that MSG’s policy might violate civil rights laws. The crux of the matter lies in whether the policy unfairly discriminates against certain individuals, potentially infringing upon their civil liberties.
Then there is the deployment of facial recognition technology by MSG that brings privacy concerns to the forefront. The legal debate here centers on whether the use of such technology in a public space, particularly to enforce a corporate policy, crosses the line into privacy invasion or even amounts to surveillance overreach.
The policy could potentially impact free speech and access to courts. There’s a growing apprehension that such policies could have a chilling effect on these fundamental democratic rights. The fear is that individuals might be dissuaded from pursuing legal action if they believe it could lead to social or professional consequences, like being barred from public venues.
“You can do certain things for security and safety reasons, but obviously this is a different category,” Kamins said. “Now I may only be allowed back in if I can play for the Knicks, but I’m much too short.”
In a statement from MSG Entertainment to the Eagle, a spokesperson said, “MSG’s adverse attorney policy precludes attorneys from firms pursuing active litigation against the company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved and is in compliance with all applicable laws. All impacted attorneys have been notified of our policy, and upon resolution of the litigation, they will be welcomed back to our venues.”
MSG Entertainment is best known for operating Madison Square Garden. However, the company also operates other venues including The Theater at Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, and Beacon Theatre; and The Chicago Theatre.
